The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

At Large

(Page 2 of 2)

LONDONERS ARE CERTAINLY right to be suspicious. The group behind the proposed mega mosque is one Tablighi Jamaat, a shadowy organization formed in the 1920s in India that French intelligence calls the "ante-chamber of Islamic fundamentalism," and a "gateway to extremism." Among its distinguished alumni are Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and two of the London 7/7 subway bombers. Two of the recent London-Glasgow Airport bombers were also members, according to the Independent.

Londoners do not object to the proposed mosque because they are anti-Muslim, rather because they fear it will spawn more extremists of the type responsible for last summer's plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic, that demand Sir Salman Rushdie's knighthood revoked, and that want to see Islamic law instituted in Britain (now about one-third of British Muslims). Britons read the daily papers and know that the group behind the proposed mosque has produced at least five British terrorists. And yet anyone who expresses doubt about the real intentions of this group is immediately pegged an Islamophobe. Despite what the name suggests, Islamophobia has come to mean not the irrational fear of Muslims, but the hatred of all Islamic peoples. Indeed, simply expressing doubts about the compatibility of Islam and liberal democracy gets one labeled an Islamophobe.

The charge of Islamophobia is often enough to silence the opposition. But Londoners must be allowed a civil debate as regards the limits of tolerance when confronted with an intolerant and potentially dangerous ideology. And -- need it be said? -- such a debate must extend beyond mere name-calling.

*The petition, located at the British prime minister's official website, begins, "We the Christian population of this great country England," which fails to take into the account the fact that England is a largely secular nation. Worse is the petition's conclusion: "This [the mosque] will only cause terrible violence and suffering and more money should go into the [National Health Service]." How the mosque will cause terrible violence and suffering is not spelled out. Further, the petitioners mistakenly seem to believe public money will be used in the mosque's construction.

Christopher Orlet writes the Existential Journalist blog.

topics:
Islam, Law, Pakistan, Oil